Have you ever been told that you do not qualify for a privilege because you lack," Freeness of Speech".This lack of "Freeness of Speech" may be the result of something you did or did not do. Also some member of your family could of done something or failed to do something and so the Elders decided that you do not have" Freeness of Speech" because of it. And so you did not qualify for a privilege. Blueblades
Freeness of Speech
by Blueblades 5 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Brummie
Most JWs would stick that label on anyone who didnt answer up at meetings or anyone who didnt stand up verbally for the "truth". As if somehow JWs have got freedom of speach in anything!
Irony at its most blatant!
Brummie
-
out4good3
" Freeness of Speech"
Interesting..
I would've thought that too much real "freeness of speech" would disqualify you from being an elder.
-
blondie
Actually, this brings up a question I have had about what "freeness of speech" is. I have been told that within the privacy of the elder body meetings that they can say anything about another elder whether they have proof or not. Ex-elders and elders what does that phase actually mean in that context? Can any judgmental statement be made about an elder by another elder? I talking about things that cannot be said by the publishers about each other.
Blondie
-
Blueblades
Blondie,My understanding of what the expression freeness of speech means is this:According to WT.policy,when an elder or ministerial servant or a pioneer or a memeber of their family does not set a good example continuosly in whatever area of WT.policy, then that one in position of privilege, can lose that positon if the body of elders deem it so.They then determine that the individual no longer has "freeness of speech"before the congregation.For example:An elder may have very few hours out in the field service, yet in his comments he always elevates the need to be out in the field.The cong. may not listen to his comments because he is hardly ever out in the field.And the cong. may feel that he does not have freeness of speech in this area because he is not practicing what he preaches in the hall.The elders may be aware of this .But they decide if he has freeness of speech not the cong.They determine that he supports the field service by means of his comments never undermining the field service in his comments.Yet, behind closed doors they may make him the topic of conversation about his low hours not being a good example and so could also ask him to step down if this is ongoing and the flock is talking about it.they will use the freeness of speech issue created by the WT's policy and enforced by the CO.when he visits the cong.This policy of freeness of speech is held-up whenever the CO. or the elders are out to get someone for whatever the hidden reasons.Whether its you personally or a member of your family.However,I must clarify that some in position of privilege, honestly don't belong in that position.Im not being judgmental .Blueblades
-
onacruse
Blueblades: That is also my understanding of how WTS applies this principle. As usual, it has caveats.
For example, an elder is supposed to also be "irreprehensible" (meaning: free of any charges, whether proven or not...not the same as "free from accusation," meaning an accusation that has been proven). How many elders have YOU ever seen removed from responsibility, even temporarily, while some charge is being resolved? Me, only 2 in 40 years, and they both turned out to be guilty as hell. And in the last cong I attended, there were at least 3 elders that had been called on the carpet for various infractions, yet remained fully empowered.
Same with "freeness of speech." I've known sooooo many elders that gave talks about things that almost everybody else in the cong KNEW were hypocritical.
Welcome to the "good old boys" club, eh?
Craig